You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: “Defining Voluntaryism” - No, private property is not “optional” (addressing @lukestokes)
I completely agree with you. Land ownership is very tricky which means some aspects of private property are very tricky. If you go back far enough, land ownership claims almost always involve some violent group against another. Self-ownership seems obvious to me as well, but surprisingly I've actually had debates with people who feel otherwise. It's usually a waste of time.
Then we are in agreement here, that voluntaryism is always based on private property norms of one sort or another because self-ownership is private property. This is ALL I am saying. Thus, asserting that some legitimate conceptions of voluntaryism are not based on property is incorrect, by definition.
Are you going to put efforts into improving the Wikipedia page? I agree with your perspective, I'm simply saying not everyone does and as evidence I give the encyclopedia.
Self ownership is a form or private property, yes. There are many forms of private property, many nuances to it (such as land rights and land disputes) which are not at all clear. Some people have views on those aspects of private property which you or I may not agree with, but they still hold to the NAP, self-ownership, and a "philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary." I've met these people. I don't agree with them on everything, but I won't tell them what labels they are allowed to use based on nuanced private property disagreements. That was the point was trying to make, not that self-ownership isn't part of voluntaryism.
If S.O. is a form of private property (your second quote here), then your initial assertion (first quote) which asserts that some who don't violate the NAP may disagree, becomes illogical.
To disagree with ISO and to abide by the NAP is an absurdism, as to abide by the NAP is to agree with ISO.
Do you get it? Any NAP-based definition of Voluntaryism inlcudes private property, as to abide by the NAP one must respect and understand ISO (private property).
So it is not just "my definition" but any NAP-compatible definition which includes private property.
I am glad to see we actually agree here now.
To me, self-ownership (undisputed) is a subset of the larger category of private property (disputed). They are not exactly the same thing, though built of the same stuff. As an example, land ownership is a form of private property. There are many real disputes within the voluntaryist/anarchist/etc community about justified claims of land ownership. There are disputes and disagreements about this category of private property. Those same people may have zero disputes or disagreements about self-ownership.
Right, so your initial statement (first quote) was not accurate and demonstrably incorrect.
You stated that some people's NAP-based conceptions of voluntaryism do not include private property. This is categorically incorrect as ISO is a form of private property and is necessitated if NAP compliance would be present.
I did not argue that there were no gray areas, once extrapolated.
I was referring to specific aspects of private property, not the entire concept itself which also includes self-ownership. You say "a form of" now which seems to agree with my distinction.
I did not say:
I said:
"may take a different approach on that point" should have been clarified on my part as something more like "have differing views on the role of some forms of private property as it relates to voluntaryism, specifically contentious ones related to land ownership."
As I've already mentioned (and you did not reply to), common understandings of these words are influenced by dictionaries and encyclopedias. We'd both be better off (as would the world) improving those common understandings than going back and forth here on things we essentially agree on.
Yes, and this necessary clarification and qualification was not made. Thus the correction. You can accept/concede this, and we can move on.
Haha. No, I think I will decide what I would be "better off" doing, thanks. I am clarifying, not going back and forth.
Maybe a tip that could help you in the future is to consider that going "back and forth" often happens when one party is unwilling to concede valid logical points for whatever reason.
Yes. You did not clarify. Thus the correction of the logically invalid statement.
We good?
"I did not clarify" instead of "you jumped to a conclusion that was inconsistent with my two+ years of blogging here"? It could go either way.
I'm not making root posts about your views based on a misunderstanding of the actual views you hold hinging off a single sentence. You seem comfortable doing that. That's the approach I still do not agree with.